4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Cluj Napoca.
5.  The applicant worked as a consultant veterinary surgeon in the Sanitary Veterinary Direction of Cluj County (“the DSV”), a public institution. He was the chief of the food control division. In 2001, the Ministry of Agriculture, Alimentation and Forests requested the DSV to reorganise its activity and to abolish a number of posts. The applicant's salary in May 2001 was 5,368,605 old Romanian lei (ROL).
6.  On 29 May 2001, following reorganisation, the applicant was given a post of veterinary surgeon in a regional sanitary-veterinary station, with effect from 1 June 2001.
7.  On 20 June 2001 the DSV, following an assessment of the applicant's professional achievements, reduced his salary to ROL 2,075,000, with effect from 1 July 2001.
The applicant challenged the two decisions before the courts.
8.  On 1 October 2001 the Cluj County Court (“the County Court”) dismissed the complaint against the decision of 20 June 2001, since the applicant had not used the correct administrative complaints procedure before addressing the courts. The applicant did not lodge an appeal and that judgment became final.
9.  On 10 October 2001 the County Court set aside the DSV's decision of 29 May 2001, on the grounds that the applicant's previous post had not been discontinued following reorganisation and that the new post had invested him with attributions totally different than those he had previously. Therefore, it ordered the applicant's reinstatement in his previous job and payment by the DSV of the difference between the salary earned before that decision and his present salary, with effect from 1 June 2001 until the date of his reinstatement.
10.  The DSV appealed alleging, inter alia, that following an assessment of the applicant's professional achievements he was found unsuitable for the post and therefore reallocated another post.
On 3 April 2002 the Cluj Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed that appeal by a final decision. It held, inter alia, that the applicant's professional unsuitability had not been taken into account when he was allocated a new post. That allocation was determined by the need to abolish a number of posts.
11.  On 22 February 2002 the DSV granted the applicant, for the month of June 2001, an indemnity corresponding to his leadership position.
12.  On 17 April 2002 the DSV authorised the applicant's reinstatement in his previous job, with effect from 22 April 2002, with a salary of ROL 3,794,000.
The applicant contested that decision and on 17 October 2002 the Court of Appeal, by a final decision, set it aside. The court considered that the DSV had infringed the judgment of 10 October 2001, which stated that the applicant was to be given not only his previous job, but also the salary he had before 1 June 2001.
13.  On 24 June 2002 the bailiff certified that the applicant had been reinstated in his previous job, in accordance with the judgment of 10 October 2001, and ordered the DSV to pay the amount due between 1 June 2001 and effective reinstatement.
14.  The DSV raised an objection to this, considering that the judgment of 10 October 2001 had been enforced, since the applicant had been reinstated in his previous job and since his salary was in accordance with the judgment of 1 October 2001.
15.  On 22 July 2002 the Cluj-Napoca District Court upheld the objection and ordered the bailiff to cease execution. The court considered that on 1 June 2001 there had been no difference between the applicant's previous and present wage, since the order of 20 June 2001 had reduced the applicant's salary. That judgment was upheld by a final decision of the County Court of 18 October 2002.
16.  In May 2003 the DSV started paying the applicant a 30 % indemnity corresponding to his leadership position. The applicant lodged administrative proceedings to claim the same indemnity for the period of July 2001-May 2003, as provided for by the judgment of 10 October 2001. On 7 October 2004 the Court of Appeal, by a final decision, allowed his action, considering that he had a right to that indemnity on the basis of the judgments of 10 October 2001 and 17 October 2002. The DSV paid the indemnity due to the applicant.